20070510082932.pdfDATE: May 10, 2007
TO: Janette Ronquillo
8817 207, Pi SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Exan
cme
RE: Plan Check # 2006-1193
Project: New SFR
Project Address: 761 Daley St.
During re -review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please redline plans or submit two (2) sets of revised
plans/documents (affected sheets only) with a written response to each of the items below to a
Permit Coordinator.
1) ok
2) ok
3) ok
4) ok
5) ok
6) 5110107 See attached additional comments from Structural Consultant. See attached structural
comments from city consultant. Respond to each item in writing.
City of Edmonds
o�
0
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
Fsr. 1890
(425) 771-0220
DATE: May 10, 2007
TO: Janette Ronquillo
8817 207, Pi SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
FROM: Jenny Readwin, Plans Exan
cme
RE: Plan Check # 2006-1193
Project: New SFR
Project Address: 761 Daley St.
During re -review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please redline plans or submit two (2) sets of revised
plans/documents (affected sheets only) with a written response to each of the items below to a
Permit Coordinator.
1) ok
2) ok
3) ok
4) ok
5) ok
6) 5110107 See attached additional comments from Structural Consultant. See attached structural
comments from city consultant. Respond to each item in writing.
Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S.
PO Sox 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
360 874 0562
Fax 360 874 0591
To: Marie Harrison
121 5th Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Ronquillo Residence
761 Daley Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Plan Review # 2006-1193
Second Letter
E.]
Friday, May 04, 2007:
EECE # EDM 06-60 (2)
Structure
Staged Area
S.F.
First floor
1968
Second floor
2333
Total
4298
Garage
457
Total
4755
Outdoor room patio
175
Epyy Porch
53
Deck Upper Level
36
Grand total
5019
RI
BUILDING DEPARIIIEV�-;'
c,I°y OF EDMONDS
The above referenced project is in the process of plan review for compliance with
Edmonds ordinances and applicable codes. The following comments,
deficiencies/corrections must be addressed prior to completion of plans review and
subsequent issuance of permits.
Provide revised plans and calculations along with a written response to each of the items
listed below to facilitate a shorter back -check time.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The scope of this review is for the Structural requirements of this project.
All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All
portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements,
conditions and concerns before permit approval.
Page 2 of 4
EECE#: EDM 06-60 (2) Second Letter
Ronquillo Residence
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS
General
1. The design analysis used a least horizontal width of 36 feet but it appears the
least width shall be 39'11 ". How was the 36 feet determined? Please revise
accordingly or clarify how the 36' was determined. IBCfigure 1609.2.1 footnote
10 The response state the 2 feet extension is insignificant is not correct. The code
requires the full dead load to be used for the lateral design. Resubmit design from
the engineer of record stamped and signed to justify the design.
Sheet A5 UPPER LEVEL FLLOR PLAN:
2. 2. Please provide detail for the support of the guardrail at the deck off the master
bedroom to resist the code required forces. IBC 1607 7.1 The drawings still only
schematically what is going too be built without any information's. More
information is required to be added to the drawings to show code compliance. This
also should include analysis to justify.
Sheet A6 FOUNDATION PLAN AND DETAILS:
3. 3. Please provide calculations for the 4x10 beam supporting the joist shown.
Design analysis submitted is for a beam span 6 feet. But the beams shown on the
drawings will exceed this span. Resubmit analysis for the maximum span as shown
on the drawings.
Sheet A7 FRAMING PLAN AND DETAILS:
4. Upper floor beam required per analysis to be a 3-1/2 X 11-7/8 for beam 14 but the
drawings state 3-1/2X9 GLB. This is not equivalent. Submit analysis for the beams
specified on the drawings to show code compliance.
5. 5. Engineer of Record (EOR) please sped the required connection required for
the beam to the post. The drawing states to use Simpson HH connections to the
post but this will not support the vertical loads. HH header hangers are used when
studs are notprovided The beams forces will not be resisted per Simpson catalog
page 166. Note 3 states to use this The maximum force H114 can support
vertically is 1195 pounds and HH6 is 1595 pounds. The drawings still have not
been modified to show the required connections of the post to the beams. Modify
drawings to clearly show the required connections. IBC 2304.9.7
6. 6. EOR, please clam what is considered significant loaded beams as noted in
footnote 3. How is this to be determined by the contractor/builder? It is not clear
where this shall be used. Now the note significant loaded has been deleted but still
Page 3 of 4
EECE#: EDM 06-60 (2) Second Letter
Ronquillo Residence
the required connector shall be specified not just HH connector to post. Please
modify drawings to state the required post to beam connections. TBC 2304.9.7
7. 7. Provide an analysis far the post to support the glu-lam beam. It was designed
spanning simple supported span of 6 feet and has a mark 24F V4 so must be 3
separate beams. Modify drawings clearly to show the required support of these
beams. A single 4X6 will not work to support these beams. If you elect to run the
glu-lam beams continuously then the allowable bending stress at the top lam must
be used as 1850 and not 2400 psi. Alternatively, modify call out to state 24F -V8
and provide details for the support. Drawings not have separated the beams.
Please specify the required connection of the post to the foundations naw being
used. Breaking the beams as shown the connections will not support the design
loads at the ends. Also how is the 5-1/4X11-7/8 and 3-1/8X12 being supported?
Submit analysis to justify the required support at this location.
8. 8. EOR, please provide a lateral analysis for three side lateral supported
diaphragm. The drawings state solid block of the garage but additional lateral
forces. are required to be added to the end walls to resist the lateral forces do to
rotations and must be added to the shear wall. I was unable to determine from the
analysis has this additional forces was accounted for: Please clam or modify
analysis accordingly. IBC 2305.2.5 ASCE 9.5.5.5 This still has not been addressed
at this time. Please modify accordingly.
9. 9. EOR, please sped the required collector element between shear wall mark W6
at the opening in the diaphragm. Nothing is specified to collect the diaphragm
forces into these walls. This still has not been addressed. Please modify
accordingly.
10.10. EOR, please sped the required past to support the beam mark 5 at the
blocked diaphragm. Please also sped the required positive connections. This
still has not been addressed at this time.
11.11. EOR, please provide a detail on the drawing for the framing of the guard rails
at the balcony. finis is required to resist a force of 200 pounds applied in any
direction. Also, the infill shall be design to resist 50 psf. Please add details for
this area. This still has not been addressed at this time.
12. Revised drawings now have added a 3-1/2X11-7/8 under the bearing wall but there
is nothing specified to support this beams. Please modify the drawings accordingly.
Sheet A8 FRAMING PLAN AND DETAILS:
13. 12. EOR, please sped the required connection of the girder truss to the multi
stud columns. This still has not been addressed on the drawings at this time.
Page 4 of 4
EECE#: EDM 06-60 (2) Second Letter
Ronquillo Residence
14. 13. EOR, please specify the required connection of the glu-lam beam to the multi
studs columns. This still has not been modified or addressed at this time.
15. 14. EOR, please clam what is considered significant loaded beams as noted in
footnote 3. How is this to be determined by the contractor/builder? It is not clear
where this shall be used or how the contractor is to determine this. This still has
not been addressed at this time.
16.15_ EOR, it is not clear what the vertical support is for the beam mark 2
intersecting with beam 3. Please provide a detail at this location to show how the
required force will be transferred. This still has not been addressed. Now there is a
girder truss but there still needs to have clearly specified the connections at these
locations. The drawings are not clear what the required support is supposed to be
to transfer the code required forces.
17. 16. EOR, please specify the required post to use to support beam mark 3. It appears
based off a check of analysis that the note 1 will not support the loads.
18. EOR it appears double studs now supporting girder truss supporting the Hip girder
will not support the design loads. The framing has now been revised and the girder
truss is a jack girder. Then the hip girder is supporting by the girder truss. Which
then is supported by 4x8 one end and at the other end with wall W6? Submit
analysis for this area to justify the force will be able to be transferred and the
required connections.
Additional corrections may be required following receipt of corrections and
additional information as requested.
Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire
Department, Zoning Department and Public Works Engineering. Changes,
clarifications or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building
Department plan review when comments are received from the other concerned
departments.
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please contact Hoyt Jeter at
(360) 874-0562 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m,
By:
Hoyt Jeter, P.E.
President